Ping Any opinion on this?
My current preference would be to close the bug. It could also be tagged wontfix: I'm not sure the feature is that useful, and switching to execlp/execvp/system could break existing behaviors. On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:43:41AM +0200, Nicolas François wrote: > > Hello, > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:46:49PM +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > > > (Note that the same applies to "login"). > > > > With this password entry: > > > > test:x:1000:1000:test:/:/tmp/x > > > > And /tmp/x being an executable file containing this only line: > > echo test > [...] > > > > Although not widely known that way of writing shell scripts is > > *the* standard (POSIX and Unix) way. The behavior is unspecified > > as per POSIX if your file starts with "#!". > > I would definitely prefer that the admin define the shell that has to > interpret the file. > > Yes, it is mentioned in > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/exec.html , > but is it a common practice to have a shell script as a shell and that the > shell which should interpret that script is not specified? > > An option could be to use execlp or execvp, and also make sure the shell > is an absolute path. > > > All the utilities specified by POSIX and that may execute > > commands (sh, env, exec, ex, vi, awk...) and the > > execvp/execlp/system/popen libc functions are meant to recognise > > those files (the text files that don't start with #!): upon a > > ENOEXEC, they should have the file interpreted by a standard > > sh. > > I did not find any usage of ENOEXEC/execlp/execvp in elvis, nvi, mawk, gawk. > They probably use system(). > > I'm not really a surprise that sh, env, and exec do that but it will be > much easier for them to choose the shell. > > > I'll concede login and su are not specified by POSIX, but it > > would make more sense that they behave the same way as other > > standard utilities. > > Are there other su / login implementations which behave that way? > > On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:18:47 +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > > > BTW, this code (thanksfully disabled on Linux) is wrong: > > > > /* Linux handles #! in the kernel, and bash doesn't make > > sense of "#!" so it wouldn't work anyway... --marekm */ > > #ifndef __linux__ > >[...] > > Yes, this should be removed. This part is done. -- Nekral -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
